Background, Objectives, and Outcomes of the International Expert Meeting On
Cultural Heritage and Disaster Resilient Communities
Kumiko SHIMOTSUMA
Dr. of Engineering
Senior Specialist for Promotion of Conservation-in-Use
Agency for Cultural Affairs, Government of Japan

1. Introduction
The International Expert Meeting on Cultural Heritage and Disaster Resilient Communities (hereinafter, “theCH-DRC meeting”), held 11–17 March 2015 in Japan—both in Tokyo’s Minato Ward and in the city of Sendai,
Miyagi Prefecture—was organized by UNESCO, ICCROM, Japan’s Agency for Cultural Affairs (ACA) and Japan’s National Institutes for Cultural Properties (NICH) in close cooperation with ICOMOS-ICORP and ICOMDRTF.
The CH-DRC meeting was held within the framework of the third United Nations World Conference on
Disaster Risk Reduction (hereinafter, “WCDRR”) that was organized in Sendai, 14–18 March 2015.
This paper lays out the background and objectives of the CH-DRC meeting and summarizes its outcomes,
both to give an overview of this official report and to serve as a reference for planning cultural heritage disasterrisk reduction events at the next WCDRR.
2. About WCDRR
In recent years, there has been increased awareness of the relationship between cultural heritage and disasterrisk reduction, and the issue has been dealt with in various meetings and training courses. What, then, is thesignificance of including heritage-related topics within the framework of WCDRR?
WCDRR is a conference organized by the United Nations to discuss international disaster risk reduction
strategies. It has been held three times, each time in Japan. The first event was undertaken in the city of Yokohama, Kanagawa Prefecture, in 1994. This was the fifth year of the “International Decade for Natural Disaster
Reduction (IDNDR)” (1990–1999), which was aimed at reducing loss of life, property damage, and social andeconomic disruption caused by natural disasters through concerted international actions. The second event
was held in 2005 in the city of Kobe, Hyogo Prefecture, as an event commemorating the tenth anniversary of
the Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake. The third event was, as mentioned before, in March 2015 in Sendai,
which was one of the areas affected by the Great East Japan Earthquake of 2011.
The IDNDR secretariat served as the secretariat for the first conference in 1994, and UNISDR for the second and the third.
The main outcome of each conference were the following documents, which include strategy goals, actions
to be taken and priorities for actions: the “Yokohama Strategy and Plan of Action for a Safer World” in 1994, the“Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015: Building the resilience of nations and communities to disasters” in
2005, and the "Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030” in 2015. Some of the key disasterrisk reduction concepts coming out of these series of discussions held over twenty years might be summarized
as follows:• Every type of disaster, be it small-scale or large-scale, frequent or infrequent, sudden or slow-onset,
exerts negative economic, social, health, cultural and environmental impacts in the short, medium, andlong term. Sustainable development cannot be achieved without efforts toward ensuring disaster resilient communities. It is necessary to establish and strengthen the systems and structures for disasterrisk reduction at all levels–local, national, regional and global involving international cooperation.
• To increase disaster resilience, it is important to develop strategies focusing on disaster prevention andmitigation, to overcome vulnerabilities based on experiences of past disasters, and to stress the idea of“Building Back Better” in post-disaster recovery and reconstruction.
• Disasters occur when hazards such as earthquakes or typhoons hit socially vulnerable places or people(e.g., those with poverty and inequality) or environments (e.g., unplanned rapid urbanization, climatechange). Therefore, it is essential to assess appropriately the disaster risks caused by insufficient or
non-existent prevention measures and as much as possible to develop plans for investing in disaster−1−

damage mitigation.
• Local involvement is particularly necessary to understand who is actually exposed to these disaster risks,
what causes the vulnerabilities, and what is to beachieved in terms of “resilience” or “building backbetter.”Reflecting the development of the abovementioned concepts, the name “World Conference on Disaster Reduction(WCDR)” that was used in 1994 and 2005 was changed to“World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction (WCDRR)” in2015. Its Japanese translation “Kokuren Bosai Sekai Kaigi”
has remained unchanged since 1994.
WCDR/WCDRR are typically divided into substantive sessions̶which include the Intergovernmental Segment andthe Multi-Stakeholder Segment, consisting of various thematic working sessions̶and public forums. While the substantive sessions are open to only accredited conference participants, including representatives from Member States, UN
organizations, intergovernmental organizations and accredited organizations (e.g., local governments or NGOs), thepublic forums are open to the general public.
The approximate number of participants in the substantive sessions has grown as follows: 147 countries and 2,400
people at the 1st WCDR (1995), 168 countries and 4,000 people at the 2nd WCDR (2005), and 187 countries and 6,500
people at the 3rd WCDRR. According to the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs website, the number of participating
countries at the 3rd WCDRR was the highest for any UN related conference held in Japan.
Out of the 187 countries, Heads of State or Prime Ministers from 12 countries, Vice Presidents or Deputy Prime Ministers from 13 countries, and ministerial-level attendees from84 countries attended. In addition, a total of 156,000 people
participated in the side events aside from the substantive sessions. As seen above, the WCDRR plays an important role inincreasing political involvement and strengthening public
understanding of disaster risk reduction through international cooperation.
3. Second WCDR (2005) and Cultural Heritage
At the second WCDR (2005), Prof. Kenzo Toki and Prof.
Kanefusa Masuda of Ritsumeikan University strongly petitioned UNESCO, ICCROM and other related internationalorganizations, as well as the domestic Cabinet Office and
ACA in Japan, which enabled the realization of the meetings
described below, with the cooperation of ICOMOS and the
Hyogo Prefectural Board of Education among others.
• Main session thematic meeting, "Crisis Managementof Cultural Heritage” (19 Jan 2005, organized by UNESCO, ICCROM and ACA), held at the Kobe conference venue. Its recommendation statement was
adopted.
−2−

Fig.1: Representatives of the four host organizations (Photo by NICH)

Fig.2: Tokyo Strategy Meeting (Photo by NICH)

Fig.3: Tokyo Strategy Meeting - group discussion (Photo
by NICH)

Fig.4: Tokyo Strategy Meeting - group discussion (Photo
by NICH)

Fig.5: Tokyo Strategy Meeting - group discussion (Photo
by NICH)

Fig.6: Tokyo Strategy Meeting - group discussion (Photoby Randolph Langenbach)Fig.7: Tokyo Strategy Meeting - group discussion (Photo
by NICH)

Fig.8: Tokyo Strategy Meeting - group discussion (Photoby Randolph Langenbach)• Public forum, “To Protect Cultural Heritage from Disasters” (19–20 Jan 2005, organized by the Cultural
Heritage Disaster Prevention Council and held at the
Kobe venuei).
Expenses for these meetings came primarily from JapanUNESCO Trust Funds. UNESCO commissioned Ritsumeikan University to oversee their organization.
On January 16, just before the meetings, the Japan ICOMOS National Committee, with funding from the JapanFoundation, held a symposium entitled “How to Protect Cultural Heritage and Historic Cities from Disasters” in Kyoto,
and adopted a conclusion paper “Kyoto Declaration 2005.”
This series of meetings is considered to have been thefirst time that the necessity of including cultural heritage
within broader disaster prevention efforts was raised as an
issue internationally. This was followed by the Hyogo Action
Framework 2005–2015 which included in its "priority actions" the reinforcement of safety measures for culturally important structures and the need to consider cultural diversity
or cultural factors in heritage properties to be protected.
Prof. Kenzo Toki is an earthquake engineering expert
who made great efforts at the first WCDR (1994). Lamenting
the divide between the fields of disaster prevention and cultural heritage, he expressed his strongly felt need to bridge
this gap upon imagining what would happen had the great
fires following the Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake occurred instead in Kyoto. As evidenced by this example, he
effectively spread awareness that the "protection of cultural
heritage against disasters is the common responsibility ofdisaster prevention officials and heritage stakeholders” andcalled out the importance of continuously petitioning for cultural concerns at events such as the WCDRR.
4. 
Third WCDRR (2015) and International Expert
Meeting on “Cultural Heritage and Disaster Resilient Communities” (the CH-DRC meeting)
The CH-DRC meeting held in March 2015 and organized by
UNESCO, ICCROM, ACA and NICH builds on sections 2 and3 above. The common objective of the four organizations wasto have concerns for culture and cultural heritage included in
the Sendai Framework and to state the objectives of cultural
heritage disaster mitigation in accordance with this Sendai
Framework.
In advance of this, a joint letter was addressed to the Commissioner of ACA, from the UNESCO Assistant DirectorGeneral for Culture and the ICCROM Director-General (dated 14 May 2014). This letter was to request the holding ofside events related to the 3rd WCDRR. Following various
consideration, this International Expert Meeting was held as
an international conference planned under the auspices of
NICHʼs Japanese Cultural Heritage Disaster Risk Mitigation−3−

Network Project (funded by an ACA grant). Therefore, oneof the aims of the CH-DRC meeting for Japan was collecting
knowledge and information useful for the promotion of domestic cultural heritage disaster mitigation, disseminating
experience of the Great East Japan Earthquake, and establishing foundations for domestic and international networks.
In order to achieve multiple goals from different perspectives, the CH-DRC meeting was structured into four main initiatives.
• Tokyo Strategy Meeting (March 11–13, Shinagawa
Prince Hotel): To discuss how to contribute to theprotection of cultural heritage from disasters in linewith the Sendai Framework in the next 15 years.
• Tokyo Symposium (March 13, Shinagawa Prince Hotel): To share the experiences of the relief and recovery of cultural heritage during the Great East Japan
Earthquake disaster with overseas experts etc.
• Third WCDRR main session thematic meeting "Resistant Cultural Heritage" (March 15, Sendai International Center): To discuss about real implementationof the Sendai Framework in the field of cultural heritage.
• Sendai Symposium (March 16, Sendai City Information & Industry Plaza): To make public the outcomesof the above at the Third WCDRR public forum.
In advance of the CH-DRC meeting, ACA and NICH created a 6-minute video entitled “Cultural Heritage: A Cornerstone of Resilient Communities” (https://www.youtube.
com/watch?v=0KeqR-uyHMs) and presented it to UNISDR.
The video introduced exemplary cases in which tangible andintangible cultural heritage actually contributed to raisingpeopleʼs desire to rebuild their lives after the Great East Japan Earthquake and other disasters around the world, emphasizing the importance of protecting cultural heritage together with the local community.
In addition, with the cooperation of organizations such as
ICCROM and ICOMOS-ICORP, 29 didactic panels were created to present domestic and international cultural heritage
disaster mitigation initiatives. During the third WCDRR,
panel exhibitions were held at four sites in the cities of Sendai, Miyagi Prefecture; Kesennuma, Miyagi Prefecture; Ichinoseki, Iwate Prefecture and Shirakawa, Fukushima Prefecture .iii Also, participants made on-site visits to architectural
cultural heritage restoration projects in Kesennuma and observed a fire drill held at Chuson-ji Temple, included in theWorld Heritage Site “Hiraizumi̶Temples, Gardens and Archaeological Sites Representing the Buddhist Pure Land,”among other visits.
At the Tokyo Strategy Meeting, which had the most attendees, 34 overseas experts, 21 national experts and manyother observers participated.

−4−

Fig.9: Tokyo Symposium (Photo by NICH)

Fig.10: Poster Exhibition during the Tokyo Symposium(Photo by NICH)

Fig.11: Field Trip on March 14, Lunch at a heritage building of Sekino-ichi Sake Brewery (Photo by ACA)

Fig.12: Field Trip on March 14, Lunch at a heritage building of Sekino-ichi Sake Brewery (Photo by ACA)Fig.13: Field Trip on March 14, Exhibition on "Documentary of the Great East Earthquake and History of the Tsunami" at Rias Ark Museum of Art in Kesennuma city (Photo by NICH)

Fig.14: Field Trip on March 14, Traditional performance of"Namiita Toramai" by its preservation association (Photoby ACA)

Fig.15: Field Trip on March 14, a damaged heritage building in Kesennuma city (Photo by ACA)

Fig.16: Field Trip on March 14, a damaged heritage building in Kesennuma city (Photo by Randolph Langenbach)

5. Meeting Outcomes: Sendai Framework
The primary outcome of the CH-DRC meeting was a declaration of consideration for culture throughout the Sendai
Framework. In particular, the fact that the word “cultural”
was raised in the expected outcome (paragraph 16) and goalto pursue (paragraph 17), as seen below, as well as in paragraphs on priority actions, can be considered a major step
forward from the Hyogo Framework.
• Expected outcome: The substantial reduction of disaster risk and losses in lives, livelihoods and healthand in the economic, physical, social, cultural and environmental assets of persons, businesses, communities and countries.
• Goal to pursue: Prevent new and reduce existing disaster risk through the implementation of integrated
and inclusive economic, structural, legal, social,health, cultural, educational, environmental, technological, political and institutional measures that prevent and reduce hazard exposure and vulnerability todisaster, increase preparedness for response and recovery, and thus strengthen resilience.
The development of the Sendai Framework can be summarized as follows: (1) The Secretariat Meeting Co-chairs
created a draft (pre-zero draft) by proactively consulting withthe third WCDRR Intergovernmental Preparatory Committee Secretariativ; (2) The Secretariat Meeting Co-chairs created a revised version (zero draft), taking into account opinions of Member States, several United Nations agencies andstakeholders acquired through informal discussions; (3) The
Intergovernmental Preparatory Committee deliberated andcreated a final draft (draft); (4) The final draft was discussed
at the WCDRR, and adopted.
The earlier draft of the Sendai Framework mentioned little
about the consideration of culture and was a regression fromthe Hyogo Framework for Action. Giovanni Boccardi, Chiefof Emergency Preparedness and Response in the Culture
Sector of UNESCO, proposed a modification through informal consultations, but because his intensions were not fully
understood, further appeals had to be made to the Secretariat Meeting Co-chairs, Thailand and Finland, the host country
Japan and other related countries.
In response to this approach, ACA proposed an amendment. In Japan, the Cabinet Office consulted with ministries
regarding the drafts and amendments, so the ACA made revisions in line with this process. We heard from personnel ofthe Foreign Affairs Ministry that adding the word “cultural”
in paragraphs 16 and 17 was received favorably by many
countries.
At the second WCDR (2005), many universities, NPOs
and NGOs supported the UN and government agencies
while preparing for meetings related to cultural heritage. On
the other hand, at the third WCDRR (2015), because UNE−5−

SCO provided coordination as the window for internationalorganizations and ACA as the window for government organizations, it could be said that it was easier to participate in theformal process for establishing the Sendai Framework.
In the future, when an opportunity arises to revise theSendai Framework and we wish to further increase emphasison the consideration of culture, the author believes that it
would be effective to gain the involvement of the WCDRRIntergovernmental Preparatory Committee Secretariat froman early stage, together with the participation of the UNESCO World Heritage Committee and Intangible Cultural Heritage Committee, or ICCROM Member States. For this reason, it is necessary to constantly increase the number ofcountries in which their cultural heritage authorities havebasic knowledge of “UNISDR” and “WCDRR,” and have connections with the ministry sections in charge for exchanging
information and making arrangements.
Paragraph 25(g) of the Sendai Framework declares theimportance of enhancing “the scientific and technical work
on disaster risk reduction and its mobilization through thecoordination of existing networks and scientific research institutions at all levels and in all regions, with the support of
the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction Scientific and Technical Advisory Group.” For this reason, UNISDR set up a new framework called the Science and Technology Partnership. Using this type of framework, it would be
effective to strategically promote various studies and research related to cultural heritage disaster mitigation as partof the Sendai Action Framework implementation outcomes.
Although holding a thematic meeting such as described
below requires budget planning, procedures to maximize effects of the Framework relying on strategy and coordination
is something that can be done without any additional costs.

6. Meeting Outcomes: Thematic Meeting on “Resilient
Cultural Heritage"
The secondary outcome of the CH-DRC meeting is that a thematic meeting on “Resilient Cultural Heritage" was held in
the main session of the third WCDRR. There was great demand for individual thematic meetings that UNISDR proposed at first, dealing with tourism and cultural heritage in
one session. Finally, as requested by Japan, it became possible to hold a separate meeting on this theme. As part of thisprocess, UNESCO sent a letter to the World Heritage Committee countries asking for support towards the realization of
independent thematic meetings (September 12, 2014). In Japan, Prof. Kenzo Toki called for support from various fields.
Also, IFRC has taken up "culture and risk" as a theme of its
World Disasters Report 2014. This demonstrates that the recognition that disaster risk reduction cannot be achieved without understanding the culture of the region has begun to be−6−

Fig.17: WCDRR Thematic Meeting on "Resilient Cultural
Heritage" (Photo by NICH)

Fig.18: Field Trip on March 16, National Treasure buildings of Osaki-Hachimangu Shrine in Sendai (Photo by
NICH)

Fig.19: Field Trip on March 16, Sendai City "Revival of theWorld of the Glacial Period" Museum (Photo by NICH)

Fig.20: Sendai Symposium (Photo by NICH)

Fig.21: Poster Exhibition during the Sendai Symposium(Photo by NICH)

Fig.22: Field Trip on March 17, Garden of Motsu-ji Temple
nationally designated as Special Place of Scenic Beauty(Photo by ACA)

Fig.23: Field Trip on March 17, Chuson-ji Temple (Photoby Randolph Langenbach)Fig.24: Field Trip on March 17, Welcome performance by
Fire Prevention Club at Nakajima Elementary School in
Hiraizumi town (Photo by Randolph Langenbach)shared on a global level, and we feel that there is growing
acceptance overall.
At the thematic meeting, Koichiro Matsuura, former Director-General of UNESCO, made opening remarks, and Stefano De Caro, Director-General of ICCROM, served as facilitator. In addition, the following six speakers (in order ofpresentation) made remarks about the possibilities embodied in cultural heritage to enhance disaster response capabilities of local communities and the required implementation of the Sendai Framework.
• Giovanni Boccardi (Chief, Emergency Preparedness
and Response, Culture Sector, UNESCO)• Masanori Aoyagi (Commissioner, Agency for Cultural Affairs)• Pierpaolo Campostrini (Managing Director CORILA)• Webber Ndoro (Director, African World Heritage
Fund)• Corine Wegener (Cultural Heritage Preservation Officer, Smithsonian Institution)• Galina Angarova, (Indigenous Peoples' International
Centre for Policy Research and Education)
The author believes that the participants ably expressed
the concept that cultural heritage inherently plays an activerole in contributing to societiesʼ capacity building for disaster
response.
The list of thematic meetings was finalized in mid-November 2014, four months before the third WCDRR. Processes
for conference preparation and consensus building, and information on registration procedures for participants had not
yet been made clear. Even under such conditions, the factthat these thematic meetings were able to be planned as anintegral part of the Tokyo Strategy Meeting owes much to
the devoted cooperation of the staff of ICCROM, namely
Aparna Tandon of the Collection Unit, and Joseph King andAkiko Umezu of the Sites Unit. We also received a variety ofadvice from Jerry Velasquez of UNISDR.
7. M
 eeting Outcomes: Recommendation Statement
The third outcome of the CH-DRC meeting is that the Recommendation Statement that was put together by agreementof all attendees of the Tokyo Strategy Meeting. Joseph King,
Sites Unit Director of ICCROM, served as the supervisor of
the meeting. The author believes that experts in a wide range
fields, for tangible and intangible as well as immovable andmovable cultural heritage, were able to come together andreach an agreement because we shared a common philosophy in the following basic ideas: What is resilience in disaster
response ability? What is the “better” state that should beaimed for in better reconstruction (Build Back Better)? How
can cultural heritage relate to these steps?
Terry Cannon (Institute of Development Studies, Univer−7−

sity of Sussex, UK), the executive editor of the above-mentioned World Disasters Report 2014, pointed out thatpeople are struggling to maintain their day-to-day lives rather than preparing for disasters that might or might
not take place; also, topography that is susceptible to disasters is something people are used to dealing with asa part of their daily lives, creating a gap between the disaster awareness of the people and of disaster management organizations. He also pointed out that faith, values, ways of thinking and behavior influence each other,and to close the gap between the people and disaster management agencies and to develop cooperative relationships, it is important to understand accurately the indigenous/local culture. Therefore, Cannon asserted
that rather than symbols of wealth and power, such as palaces or cathedrals, cultural heritage familiar to thepeople should be focused on from a wider point of view.
Yasmeen Lari, a Pakistani architect, stated that it is important to plan disaster reconstruction in such a way
as to prevent residents from losing self-confidence and self-esteem, for example by using traditional building
materials and techniques to rebuild an environment that people can continue to manage themselves.
Takamasa Saito, Councillor for Cultural Properties of the Agency for Cultural Affairs, explained that thepeople were encouraged by the restoration of folk cultural property during the recovery process after theGreat East Japan Earthquake. This brought an opportunity for revitalizing affected communities. Also, by sharing the results of preventive archeological excavations with local residents prior to the undertaking of reconstruction projects, the excavated ruins sometimes became a symbol of recovery, and there are cases where themain parts of the ruins were preserved within the premises of the disaster relief public housing area.
The author found it very meaningful that we were able to confirm specific methods for integrating culture
into disaster prevention systems through discussions that effectively developed out of these keynote speeches
at the start of the meeting. Personally, the author would like to note that in the recommendation statement, thefollowing points were pinpointed as basic ideas for disaster prevention, and we plan to take advantage of themin our day-to-day operations:• Cultural heritage can become the driving force for strengthening community resilience and is a useful
tool in helping local communities deal with disasters at all phases (e.g., planning, mitigation, response,
recovery).
• Cultural heritage should be defined broadly to include immovable, movable, urban areas and landscapes, archives and libraries, intangible (e.g., know-how, traditions, festivals, languages, traditional
techniques and skills), etc.
• While there are many stakeholders, the main stakeholder in disaster risk management is the local community.
• It is important to gain a good understanding of indigenous knowledge and styles of thinking throughcultural heritage and to establish means of cooperation and coordination while recognizing what motivates the actions of the people and who plays what role in building collaboration.
All the debates during the preparation and conduction of the CH-DRM meeting started from the draft concept note that Giovanni Boccardi, UNESCO Chief Emergency Preparedness and Response, had developed in
September 2014.
8. Conclusion
For the entire country of Japan, the CH-DRC meeting brought a significant opportunity to deepen the debate
between international and Japanese experts, to review and recognize the challenges that were faced during the
rescue and recovery of cultural properties after the Great East Japan Earthquake, and consequently to reconsider concepts and strategies for cultural heritage disaster risk reduction in Japan.
There has been a great deal of interest in topics such as the development of a network for cultural heritage
DRR, training of heritage managers, coordination between excavations and reconstruction projects, and therecovery of intangible folk cultural properties. While some of these items have been taken up by the recommendation statement, we now have a clear view of the challenges that must be tackled, such as cooperation
between different types of cultural property, division of roles between the national and local governments, enhancement of regional cultural asset inventories and means of sharing information, and inter-agency cooperation for the integral protection of cultural properties and their respective surrounding areas.
Disaster risk reduction is a challenge that spans all fields of society. The disaster risk reduction perspective
should be incorporated into and strengthen the development of policies and planning in each of these fields,−8−enhancing mutual cooperation among them, in order to deal effectively with complex social issues such assustainable development and climate change. The field of cultural heritage disaster mitigation is part of thislarger picture and needs to be proactively addressed while maintaining awareness of its relevance to society as
a whole. The author hopes that the results of this CH-DRC meeting will provide a guide for the future development of cultural heritage disaster risk reduction through the continued efforts of many people.
Lastly, while there were a variety of unexpected incidents, the fact that we were able to successfully close
this large-scale meeting owes much to the cooperation of the participants and everyone involved. I would liketo sincerely thank them all, particularly Rinne Melissa, Akiko Umezu and Namiko Yamauchi. In addition, I
would like to dedicate the outcomes of this meeting to my two former supervisors, both sadly passed away,
who led the field in developing cultural heritage disaster risk reduction: Herb Stovel (former Site Unit Directorof ICCROM) and Satoshi Yamato (former Councillor for Cultural Properties at ACA).

Notesi) Made up of the following organizations: NPO Forum for Wood Architecture, NPO Kyomachiya Rehabilitation Institute, Kyomachiya Construction Group, Kinki Prefecture Board of Education, Kobe University COE (Safety and Urban Space Design Strategy), NPO for Protection of Cultural Heritages from Disaster, Japan ICOMOS National Committee, Architectural Institute of Japan Cultural Heritage Disaster
Measures Subcommittee, Committee of Infrastructure Planning and Management, Committee on Historical Studies in Civil Engineering,
JSSSPC, Association of Japanese Geographers Disaster Response Committee, Hyogo Heritage Institute, Cultural Institute for Disaster
Prevention Facilities, NPO Japan Conservation Project, Japan Society for the Conservation of Cultural Property, History Network, Ritsumeikan University COE program (Institute of Disaster Mitigation for Urban Cultural Heritage). (Organizations are listed with theirnames at the time.)ii) It was jointly organized by the Japan ICOMOS National Committee, Committee for “World Heritage Registration 10th Anniversary Commemorative Projects,” Ritsumeikan University COE program (Institute of Disaster Mitigation for Urban Cultural Heritage), Committee forProtection of Cultural Properties from Earthquakes, NPO for Protection of Cultural Heritages from Disaster.
iii) The exhibition sites were Osaki Hachimangu Shrine in Sendai City, Miyagi (where the main hall, connecting sanctuary and worship hall
are designated as National Treasures, and the Nagatoko is an Important Cultural Property); Chida House in Kesennuma City, Miyagi (aNationally Registered Tangible Cultural Property); Bellino Hotel Ichinoseki in Ichinoseki City, Iwate (venue for the Iwate “Cultural Properties and Disaster Mitigation" Symposium); and Fukushima Cultural Property Centre, in Shirakawa City, Fukushima.
iv) Consisting of 11 countries—the UN Member States regional representatives (5 regions × 2 countries) and the host country (Japan). The
regional representatives were: Africa (Egypt, South Sudan), Asia (Thailand, Bangladesh), Eastern Europe (Russia, Czech Republic), Latin
America (Ecuador, Jamaica), Europe (Switzerland, Finland). Thailand and Finland served as co-chairs.
Special thanks to Michiru Kanade and Rinne Melissa for helping me translate this article in English.

−9−